Madras High Court
V.Paramasivam vs Mohanraj on 12 March, 2021
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015
-and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Paramasivam
S/o.Venugopal .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mohanraj
Inspector of Police
Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station
Chengalpattu
2.KUMAR
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Chengalpattu Taluk police station
Chengalpattu
3.VIJAYAKUMAR
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge of Kanchipuram district, Chengalpattu in Crl.R.P.No.15
of 2014 dated 29.06.2015 against the order passed by the learned Judicial
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015
Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.2420 of 2014 dated
03.09.2014 for the complaint filed by the petitioner for the offences
u/s.177, 191, 193, 218, 219, 357 and 506 IPC.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Uma
For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajasekaran for R1
Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan for R2
Mr.M.Maharajan for R3
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference) Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge of Kanchipuram District, Chengalpattu in Crl.R.C No: 15/2014 dated 29.06.2015 against the Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P No. 2420 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014 for the complaint filed by the petitioner for the offence u/s.177, 191, 193, 218, 219, 357 and 506 IPC.
2.The briefs facts of the case:
The petitioner is a social worker and a member in so many Non Government Organizations, including Human Rights Organizations, Anti 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 Corruption Movement, etc., and he is also a Correspondent of News papers, viz. Makkal Kottai, Makkal Kani, Thupparium Visaranai, etc., he used to involve in social activities for public cause and during the year 2007, a person living in his area had received money from several persons in the guise of allotting house sites and thereafter cheated them and threatened the persons for six months. When the victims requested the petitioner to help them, he went along with them and requested that person to return the amounts. At that time, the person who had cheated the public, assaulted the petitioner with his henchmen, thereby, the petitioner got himself admitted in a hospital as in patient. Thereafter, he had gone to the police station to give a complaint, but, the police refused to take action on his complaint. The petitioner in order to take action against the accused, especially one Babu @ V.Srinivasan, M.A., B.L., who is the President of Melamiyur Village Panchayat, associated himself with several organizations to take action against him and he used to send complaints in respect of illegal activities happening in and around his area, due to which, the anti social and rowdy elements used to assault him. Despite several complaints given to the police, no action was taken. While so, the said Babu @ Srinivasan along with his henchmen was 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 involved in encroaching the Government lands and water bodies and had plotted it as housing sites and in respect of that also the petitioner had given a complaint against them. Due to enmity, the said Babu @ Srinivasan along with his henchmen damaged and demolished the house of the petitioner. With regard to the said occurrence, a complaint was lodged before the Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu, but the Sub- Inspectors viz. Nataraj and Chinnappan did not take any action of his complaint. Hence the petitioner had moved the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and got direction. At that stage, the 1st respondent took charge as Inspector of Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu. After receiving the Court order, the 1st respondent registered a case after 15 days and the Sub Inspector of police acted against the interest of the petitioner and registered a case favouring the accused and also abused the petitioner with filthy language and sent him out of the police station. Since no action was taken on the complaint, the petitioner had met the 2nd respondent viz. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and requested him to take action against the 1st respondent and at that time the 2nd respondent expressed his inability, stating that the 1st respondent is the investigating officer and he cannot interfere in the investigation and sent 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 him out. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 3rd respondent viz. Superintendent of Police (SP), Kancheepuram District. Since the Superintendent of Police did not take any action, the petitioner had filed another application before the Hon'ble High Court and had obtained an order and that the 1st respondent had given a wrong information before the High Court, stating that the First Information Report had been registered based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 13.04.2010 and thereby a case was closed. The petitioner had further alleged that at Paranoor Toll Gate there was a quarrel between one Randeep and Subramani with regard to selling of tea and hence had gone to the Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu for giving complaint. At that time the 1st respondent had assaulted the said Randeep indiscriminately and caused internal and external injuries and thereafter registered a case against him. When the petitioner had gone to the police station to gather news as a Reporter, the 1st respondent had attempted to assault him and when the petitioner had questioned him, the 1st respondent had abused and threatened him stating that he had orders to kill him and since the 1 st respondent received a telephone from the 2nd respondent, he went to attend the call, at that time the Sub-Inspector of Police viz. Dellibabu 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 stating that there could be a danger to the life of the petitioner had sent him out of the police station. With regard to the same, the petitioner had sent a complaint to the 3rd respondent viz. Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken against that complaint. The further allegation is that the illegal activities of the 1st respondent was increasing day by day and thereby the innocent public was affected. Thereby, a complaint had been filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2420 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu against the 1st respondent to take action for offence u/s.177, 191, 193, 218, 219, 357 and 506 IPC.
3.On the side of the petitioner sworn statements of the petitioner and his witnesses viz. S.P. John Sakthivel, K.Alamelu and G.Anandhan were recorded. Learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint and materials and after perusing the statements recorded from the petitioner and witnesses had dismissed the complaint stating that the complaint is not supported by proper documents. Further the learned Magistrate also found that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case was registered and action was initiated and thereby held that private complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C., cannot be maintained and had 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 dismissed the complaint. Against the dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2420 of 204, the petitioner preferred a Revision in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2014 before the District & Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
4.The Revisional Court considering and referring to the prayer in the complaint that “vdnt ,e;j tHf;fpy; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l Kjy;
Fw;wthspahd Ma;thsh; nkhfd;uh$; kPJ ,/e/f/ 177. 191. 193.
218. 219. 357. 506 Mfpa gphpt[fspd; fPH; jz;lid tH';fplt[k;. SP jdJ gzpapy; rpwg;g[ Vw;gl mnj rkak; bghJkf;fspd; g[fhh;fs; kPJ cldoahf tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;st[k; mth;fSf;F ePjp fpilf;ft[k; chpa Mtz bra;a SP nkYk; ftdk; brYj;j khz;gik ePjpkd;wk; fUJk; gwpghpfhuh';fis tH';f Mtz bra;a[khWk; KiwaPl;lhsuhfpa ehd; ,e;j khz;gik ePjpkd;wj;ij ePjprhh;e;J gzpe;J rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ”.
and also after perusing all the materials, finding that the complaint was not properly supported by evidence and that no cases u/s.218 & 219 IPC were made out. It further held that though the allegations of assault on one Randeep was made in the complaint he was not examined and 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 finding that the statements of the witnesses recorded were also not supporting the complaint had dismissed the Revision. The Revisional Court had also found that no relief has been sought for against the 2nd & 3rd respondents. Against the dismissal of Revision the present Criminal Original Petition u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner.
5.Heard the counsels. Perused the materials on record.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.19363 of 2013, for a direction to the 1st respondent viz. the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu to register the petitioner's complaint dated 10.04.2010 and conduct investigation, whereas, the 1st respondent had registered a case in respect of the complaint dated 13.04.2010 and had given a false information before this Court stating that he had registered a case in respect of the complaint given on 10.04.2010, thereby, misdirected the Court and got the petition dismissed. Further the petitioner had also let in oral evidence by way of sworn statement and the petitioner had also examined three other witnesses to support his case. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 Though the petitioner had made out a case for taking cognizance and issuance of summons, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the Revision and thereby he would seek to set aside the order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no documentary evidence was filed and Randeep was not examined.
7.Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the Courts below taking into consideration the complaint and the oral evidence, has rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner has not made out any case and no documentary evidence was filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and the allegations in the sworn statements are only against one Babu @ V.Srinivasan, who is the President of Melamiyur Village Panchayat and that the further allegations of encroaching Government Poromboke lands were made against the Revenue officials for not taking action against the said Babu @ V.Srinivasan and his henchmen. Further, the statements given by the witnesses also did not support the petitioner and thereby the trial Court had dismissed the complaint. Further, the Revisional Court after perusing the documents, finding that the petitioner has not made out any 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 case against the respondents had dismissed the petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.2420 of 2014, dated 03.09.2014. He would submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed by both the Courts below and that this petition is a nothing but a second Revision in the form of Criminal Original Petition, which is not maintainable accordingly prays for dismissal of the same.
8.Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that even in the complaint filed by the petitioner, no relief was sought for against the 2nd respondent and the Courts below finding that no allegations were made out against the 2nd respondent had rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the order.
9.Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent is the Superintendent of Police and there is absolutely no averment or allegation made against the 3rd respondent and the learned Magistrate finding that there is no allegations made out 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 against the 3rd respondent and finding that no relief was sought for against the 3rd respondent had dismissed the complaint and further the Revisional Court after perusing the evidence and statements recorded from the petitioner as well as the witnesses and finding that no relief was sought against the 3rd respondent and finding that no allegations were made against the 3rd respondent, had dismissed the Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2014 on 29.06.2015, which warrants no interference, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
10.Perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the petitioner as well as the witnesses examined by the petitioner do not make out any case against the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. The Courts below having carefully perused the complaint and the oral evidence had passed an order stating that the complaint against the respondents is not maintainable. The Revisional Court had also thoroughly perused the materials and had given a finding that the complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. This Court does not 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
kas find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which warrants interference of this Court.
11.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
12.03.2021 kas To.
1.The Principal Sessions Judge Kanchipuram District Chengalpattu
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II Chengalpattu Crl.O.P.No.26464 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/